Submission to the Inquiry into Victoria Planning Provisions amendments VC257, VC267 and VC274

I am making a submission to express my concerns regarding the likely outcomes for state and local heritage places resulting from the VPP amendments VC257, VC267, and VC274.

My concern specifically pertains to the impacts on the Heritage Overlay (HO), which is the primary means by which local heritage places are protected in Victoria.

The impacts of the VPP amendments may also extend to state heritage places listed under the Victorian Heritage Act (2017). Development of places adjacent to and in the vicinity of state heritage places often does not trigger the Heritage Act, and so is managed under local heritage planning, which the VPP amendments diminish.

I briefly respond to each of the questions posed by the committee below.

Whether the VPP amendments appropriately balance the objectives of planning in Victoria.

Objective D: to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas, or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural, or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value.

The VPP amendments make no acknowledgement or provisions for heritage. The VPP amendments do not exclude areas with an existing Heritage Overlay. Therefore, the Heritage Overlay will operate in conjunction with the VPP Amendments, which appears to diminish the Heritage Overlay.

Whether the VPP amendments are likely to create any significant unintended outcomes.

Where the VPP amendments and the Heritage Overlay operate over the same area, the heritage outcomes are likely to be poorer. We see this with existing Development and Design Overlays (DDOs), which are often perceived to compete with the Heritage Overlay, leading to diminished overall planning and heritage outcomes.

Having multiple planning overlays with potentially competing objectives over single pieces of land leads to poorer overall heritage, planning, design, and housing outcomes. It reduces certainty for property owners, councils, planners, developers, and the community, and leads to a more adversarial and less efficient and effective planning system.

Whether consultation on the VPP amendments was adequate.

I am unaware of specific consultation with the heritage industry about the VPP amendments.

I am unaware whether the independent expert Heritage Council of Victoria was consulted. If so, written responses or meeting minutes of their independent advice could be published in the interest of transparency and integrity.

I am aware of some consultation with non-profit heritage bodies; however, it does not appear their feedback was incorporated into the VPP amendments.

Whether the exemptions provided for in Clause 55 of the VPP, as amended by VC267, are appropriate.

I am concerned that the exemptions provided for in Clause 55 could have negative heritage impacts. I assume these exemptions will apply to properties in the vicinity of heritage overlays, meaning contextual heritage significance, planning, and design factors will no longer be subject to independent examination by local councils, leading to reduced overall heritage outcomes.

What specific changes would you seek to the amendments?

Two clear opportunities to strengthen heritage outcomes through amending the provisions:

1. Exempt the amendments for properties within heritage overlays.

2. Exempt the amendments for properties adjacent to heritage overlays. Adjacent may mean within 50-100 meters of a heritage overlay.

To do so would follow the independent expert advice provided by Planning Panels Victoria (PPV), which recommended the exemption of the heritage overlay from the amendments.

Specifically, PPV has provided independent expert advice on the first 10 activity centers (Amendment VC274). Its written referral reports identify negative heritage impacts for Broadmeadows, Camberwell, Chadstone, Epping, Essendon, Moorabbin, and Preston. Multiple PPV reports recommend exempting heritage overlays. However, the Victorian Government did not adopt this advice.

Whether the VPP that existed prior to these amendments, these amendments, or alternative proposals are appropriate to meet the housing needs of the state and local communities? 

There are opportunities, not examined or under-examined, for achieving housing densification while retaining and expanding heritage areas significant to the community.

The State of Heritage Review: Local Heritage (2020), published by the Heritage Council of Victoria, identifies opportunities and challenges for the heritage overlay and local councils. Its recommendations, including better resourcing local councils to provide robust heritage advice and adequate and up-to-date heritage overlays, appear not to have been pursued.

The heritage overlay could more effectively protect heritage significant areas while being more efficiently managed by councils and property owners if the heritage overlay was reformed and Heritage Victoria (in the Department of Transport and Planning) and local councils were adequately resourced for this heritage planning objective.

The Victorian Government has not expressed interest in pursuing heritage strategy or reforming the heritage overlay for the purposes of housing densification and strengthened design, environmental, and community outcomes. The new Plan for Victoria has no actions related to built heritage places. Meanwhile, Heritage Victoria and local councils do not appear to have the dedicated expertise and resourcing to provide for revised local planning schemes, policies, and guidelines to enable housing densification alongside improved and modernised heritage overlay protections.

Benefits of Heritage

Research published by the Heritage Council of Victoria (2023) demonstrates:

• The aesthetic and community benefits of heritage.

• Positive climate benefits of retaining existing buildings.

• Spending time in heritage places enhances our health and wellbeing.

• Conservation creates skilled, good jobs.

• Heritage grows the tourism, creative, and real estate sectors.

Yours faithfully,

Dr James Lesh

Heritage Workshop

17 April 2025